Monday, November 9, 2015



When I think of vision, I have in mind the ability to see above and beyond the majority. (Charles R. Swindoll)


a) Co-deposition not a panacea for LENR's troubles but a reinforcement of the certainty of the existence of the Fleischmann-Pons Effect- see 2)
Impressive masterfully written, a must-read and...disseminate review.
I remember the great hopes we invested in co-deposition- when Stan Szpak has first published about it. This has happened when I still had a kind of electrochemical vision of Cold Fusion.
Even this fine advanced professional work cannot  make PdD AHE intense, reproducible and long-lasting- not sufficiently high active sites density and no protection against air poisoning of the sites.
However I got the following idea-revelation: at high temperature NiH processes
phenomena of co deposition, co-precipitation- thermal not electro-chemical must play some beneficial role.

b) Daily Dispute with Abd continues rather peacefully...

First of all I am deeply indebted to my wise Australian friend, good thinker , multiple grandfather, student in Astrophysics for his so nice message comment. Thank you, dear Doug!

I like some of Abd's answers as what he says about the LENR zombies: 

The zombies are any of us when we operate on a basic survival program that sees the world in black and white, good and bad, truth and lies, that circles the wagons to defend the good guys while blaming problems on the bad guys. The zombies don't ask inconvenient questions at conferences, and zombies don't answer such questions. As well, zombies tend to not get along well with other zombies, not really. There is competition for scarce resources. And people who become zombies tend to be socially damaged in some way, an Undead Science attracts them.

With an audience of zombies, a zombie scientist can introduce a new "theory" and the zombies will all nod their heads. The zombies are thinking that "this is crazy, that zombie is completely nuts," but where ordinary people would start giggling, zombies will congratulate themselves at how open minded they are to allow this complete preposterousness equal time. Nobody raises the obvious questions.

Actually, some do, but given how many zombies there are, those questions vanish into the haze. No record is made. Zombie conferences change nothing, but allow zombies to feel connected and part of a community.

Who are the LENR zombies? We all are, when we act like zombies. I plan to raise money by selling tin-foil hats at the next ICCF. What do you think? Will they sell well?

Zombies never smile and laugh, it's a tip-off. 

I also agree in part with this:

I wrote: "NiH has more practical promise, if confirmed." Peter replied: "if not, then LENR is in the limbo!"

No. PdD has little immediate practical promise, but has received only a tiny fraction of the development funding it will likely take to create practical approaches. What we know now, in spite of some mishegas you'll see floating around, is that the reaction is a surface reaction, with much higher power density than originally claimed.

A sadistic billionaire could donate 1 billion US$ to PdD research (Pd D stricto sensu( 

asking you to tell him what will you spend the money for, rather fast and what dare you to promise as results. Can you answer him?

Further, if NiH is not confirmed, i.e., say, Rossi goes belly-up and Parkhomov vanishes, etc, there is substantial confirmation that NiH is possible, look at that exploding wires work. The big banana has never been power level, it has always been reliability. With reliability, low-power can become high-power.
 I hope these will not happen. My ideas about scale-up are in contradiction with yours. Size matters in many ways. Scale-up is technological art.

I wrote:

"I am very concerned with practicalities, not solely concerned with "truth" as you might think."

Peter replied: "happy to hear this, however what is prioritary for you, truth or value?) 

Let's start with noting that I don't believe in either truth or value as realities, they are interpretations that don't exist in nature (at least not what we routinely call truth). They are words, with meaning only as we assign it. Having said that, and then cheerfully proceeding to use the words anyway:

Truth without value is useless. However, value without truth is unstable and unreliable.So we look for truth and value.

OK, my friend, I will look for value and truth.

Abd also says things I want to like and believe, but cannot, as:

I wrote: "I want to open the floodgates for LENR research, to the point that funding ramps up to millions of dollars the first year, rapidly to hundreds of millions or a billion or more"

Peter replied: "Please re-read this, my friend, is this realistic, possible, feasible? Will the absolute certainty of excess heat-correlated-with-helium, convince any rich man or institution to invest so heavily in LENR?"

Reread it yourself, Peter. "So heavily" would be hundreds of millions or billions. That is not the first step. The first step is at a lower level. Some Phase I funding may be in the million-dollar range, maybe even less. Phase II funding may be in the tens of millions, taking it above what SKINR received. We will have quite soon th possibility of learning from SKINR's experience, what can result from the well applied Scientic Method to PdD.

This is not for "investors." Investors are already involved, there is work going on that is privately funded, but this work is isolated, when LENR is likely to require a massive social effort. Right, my error it is about funding providers not investors

Peter, I've studied the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review. That review *almost* took LENR to the next step. What was missing? Basically, coherent presentation. The message was diluted by massive evidence with no clear organizing concept. There was enough evidence given to show that the anomalous heat effect was real and nuclear in nature, but it was not understood, because it was explained by people inside the field, with the explanations not being designed to penetrate the noise. Nevertheless that review, like the 1989 review, recommended targeted research to answer basic questions. That is what I call Phase I research, with Phase I being focused almost totally on establishing reality through direct, confirmed and reproducible evidence. As you know, the work has already been done, but it can be done with increased precision, and as you also know, one of the characteristics of pathological science is that results disappear when precision is increased. That's what will be done: precision will be increased. It''s already known how to do this.\

I think this has to be discussed with our colleagues who wrote the Review It is awfully important to know what to write but even more what to not write.

If we wanted to propose an NiH experiment, what would we propose, already known and confirmed, so that it's only a matter of money and expertise, no new discoveries needed, no miracles, and a reliable budget is possible?

I didn't get this exactly, however New Science is a must, what we do not know is always more important for problem solving than what we already know well. 

Yes. This will work. I have already received seed funding, a lot of money for me but only a small part of what will be needed.

My sincerest congrats! Be proud, you are good in persuasion, it is 99% your personal merit, 1% of the PdD system.


1) Industrial Heat Slide Comparing Coal and E-Cat as Fuel (English Translation)

2) Lawrence Forsley, Pamela Mosier-Boss: Condensed Matter Nuclear Reaction Peer-Reviewed Publications
3) The possible LENR reaction in SAFIRE (AXIL)

4) Here is published the video-recording report about the PFUR CF Seminar of Oct. 29 2015

Unfortunately some technical problems here, videos do not work yet. Can somebody help?.

5) Using hydrogen to enhance lithium ion batteries:
Has this something to do with LENR?

6) Other paper found by Alain Coetmeur, It is by Ethan Siegel, 'nuff told!
'If you meet simultaneously a vipera and a Teflon-brained but highly intelligent physicist, take care of the physicist first; the vipera is not so dangerous" (Namibian Proverb)
The paper is about the EMDrive but says
Cold fusion — and hence, devices like the e-Cat — are almost certainly hoaxes due to their violation of the known laws (and well-studied phenomena) of electromagnetic and nuclear physics that have been established and are understood.
And shows a classical photo- Rossi, Kullander, Essen.
What strikes me is this"almost certainly"- a half-oxymoron.
Also at:

7) Preliminary information about a Cold Fusion presentation by Prof. Jean Paul Biberian to be held at Paris, November 21, 2015- more to come

8) Rossi says:

Andrea Rossi
November 9th, 2015 at 8:16 AM

It is not true that LENR related papers have not been yet accepted on peer reviewed publications: the most important and dense of consequences peer reviewed publication in the world is the Unoited Stated Patent Office. The peer reviewing at the USPTO is made by at least 2 specialistsof the treated matter and it lasts at least 2-3 years; it makes checks that any other peer reviewed magazine does not: for example a research in all the world that nothing similar has been published ( in any form or source); the peer reviewed publication of an approved USPTO patent has consequences that no other publication has in the industrial, technological and commercial echelons and fields of applications of the world.
Warm Regards,

The choice of Tanmay Vora, again excellent- he discovers treasures for us:
Emilie Wapnick on Being a Multipotentialite:


  1. The attempt to rebrand the long standing dullard drivel of dimwitted drones of science as 'zombies' is such obvious pandering to troll-like behaviour as to define the perpetrator as more zombie than drone so perhaps it becomes a self-fullfilling sematic ploy. But of course the whole sematic rebranding fiction of lenr,lanr and all other proposed variants on 'cold fusion' are illustrative of more of the same attraction by distraction ploy so common to drones.

    1. Not sure whart A Nonny Mouse is saying; however, as I have noted before, there seems to have been a strong tendency to play "follow the leader in physics," T he leader being Albert E , who seems to have initiated the idea that , "instead of developing ideas to explain data,, who will be more efficient if we develop the idea first, then find a piece of data to support it.....So, we've ended up with Black Holes, Matter/Antimatter Annihilation, Standard Model of Particle Physics and the HIggs. and other bits of SciFi nonsense that we accept as "True."
      Now "Cold Fusion comes along and it gets considered "Nonsense"
      Yep. we got the data before we had the idea,
      Wrong! Wrong! , Wrong,! by modern physics thinking .

    2. I see the situation that currently exists in physics a bit differently. I have been connecting the dots in LENR for many years now by using systems engineering methods. I have yet to find a dot that has not been described by some aspect in science in one field or another.

      One interesting field in science that I has discovered a newfound appreciation for is string theory. Up until recently, I had considered it a waste of good brain power, but then I found that the predictions that string theory makes fits perfectly well the weird data that has recently come from Rossi and Holmlid. With LENR, if people have to have a good handle on string theory and quantum mechanic to appreciate it, its common acceptance will go wanting.

      Even more amazing is that the people that have produced these predictions as an abstract exercise in mathematical construction and logic do not believe that these behaviors can possibly exist in real life.

      Like quantum mechanics, understanding LENR is not easy. LENR will not be accepted in the short term because its causation is currently beyond the scope of old science that most people have accepted as reality. LENR has been discovered and forgotten in 30 year cycle since the time of Tesla and it won't find its way into common science belief for some time yet. The paradigm shift in science that LENR portends is the most radical that has yet been experienced by humankind. But the one thing that would force the issue is the release into the market of a got to have LENR product that becomes indispensable to everyday living. When people are faced with this conundrum, minds will be forced to adjust if money is to be made under the new paradigm. Making money is the most persuasive motivator in our lives these days. Not even paradigm warfare can long resist the profit motive.

    3. I just don't buy into the notion that its the 'gold' that dictates the worth, ore worse the worthiness of scientific discovery. The essence of discovery is that true discoveries are usually unexpect, characterized by the exclamation 'wow that's odd' as opposed to 'eureka'. It is the realm of drones and bored technicians to labour in quest of 'eureka' where true scientists find satisfaction in the quest for the once, or few in a lifetime, "wow that's odd" events. Having lived long enough to have known not Einstein but several of his contemporaries, I can testify that they were all after the "wow" unexpected moments as opposed to delivering technologies that proved their theoretical musings. Not that they didn't along the way manage to shove some functioning tech out the door.

      As for the term lenr, just how inappropriate can one get... there is nothing low energy or confusing about the immense energy yield in nuclear reactions whether hot or cold fusion.

      Perhaps Rossi's cat is chasing nonny mouse

  2. I hate to keep beating this drum, but the problem is the electrolysis part of the system, not the PdD. Electrolysis has a gigantic number of independent variables due to impurities from pretty much everywhere, which make it virtually impossible to get good control. Both Miley and Schwarz have successfully used both Pd and Ni (and in Schwarz's case, combinations of the two) in gas-based devices.

    1. "the problem is the electrolysis part of the system"

      You are correct.

      Electrolysis keeps the temperature of the LENR reaction low. But pallidum like all the metals in the platinum family reflect UV light best.

      In order to produce Surface Plasmon polaritons best, the metal substrate must reflect light to confine light on its surface.

      In his new system, Rossi heats the new prototype E-Cat X reactor to on or above 1500C. That reactor must use palladium because of this high E-Cat X operating temperature. He must use palladium because that conforms to the specifications of his new patent.

      The high 1500C heat produces lots of black body UV light that pallium does best with. This speaks to the refinement that the materials selected for a reactor must be compatible with the operating conditions that the reactor conforms to.

  3. thanks, Peter. You have some, ah, interesting people commenting. My condolences.

    You wrote:
    "My ideas about scale-up are in contradiction with yours. Size matters in many ways. Scale-up is technological art"

    The problem with scale-up is reliability. If I assume that the Rossi MW generator actually exists, what he has done could be to multiply up an unreliable technology. So it works on statistical reliability. He can keep replacing units that stop operating. Rossi is generally operating, if the general impressions are correct, below an efficient temperature, because it would be too close to runaway. It's his control method.

    We have no reliability data from Rossi devices. He has rather carefully concealed that. The Levi et al demonstrations with three devices showed three radically different operations.

    If PdD can be made reliable, what we have is extremely high energy density (from deuterium fusion, much more energy per mole than any comparable reaction with hydrogen. If devices can be reduced to the minimum necessary, without all that wasted bulk, it is not impossible that practical PdD devices could be made, and they would probably consist of many small individual devices, not one big reaction cell.

    However, NiH might also be amenable to this. If Rossi really has a reasonably reliable small 10 kW reactor, he would already have a product that could sell. But if the reactors of that size are not reliable, this explains the reluctance to release them. hence the MW device, consisting of many of these.

  4. "Zombies" is, of course, a riff on Simon's Undead Science, and Simon notes the social phemomena. What happened in 1989 was, as Huizenga called it, the Scientific Fiasco of the Century, and if anyone thinks that all the responsibility for this is on those nasty physicists, they are not familiar with the history ... or are zombies.

    The real issue now is how we clean up that mess. It's rather obvious that the appearance of a practical commercial device, that anyone can buy and test, will change everything. So does this mean we can just sit back and relax, and Saint Rossi will save us? Maybe. While I dislike how Rossi has played fast and loose with science, the lost opportunity cost for postponing the day when real cold fusion technology is available, I estimate at a trillion dollars per year. If Rossi ends that, he's forgiven a multitude of sins.

    However, failure is not impossible, it can happen in many ways, and not just what the pseudoskeptics think, that he's a fraud. So, because of the magnitude of this issue, I'm suggesting a backup plan. I've called it Plan B, which is to establish and continue the science. And this is happening. These are not competing initiatives, the funding for them is distinct and different.